Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill - Standing Committee B

[Sir Nicholas Winterton in the Chair]

Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill

Nicholas Winterton: I welcome all Members, on this dull and depressing day, to the third sitting of the Committee. I believe that it is sensible of me, as it will be of my co-Chairman, to remind the Committee that, although there are no knives, scrutiny of the Bill must be completed by 4 o’clock on Thursday 15 December. We had a high-quality debate on Tuesday and I am sure that that will continue. I call the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) to move the amendment.

Clause 2 - Certification commissioner

Mark Durkan: I beg to move amendment No. 178, in clause 2, page 1, line 18, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
‘(1)There are to be no less than three certification commissioners.’.

Nicholas Winterton: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 179, in clause 2, page 1, line 18, at end insert—
‘(1A)In making appointments the Secretary of State shall have regard to the desirability of the certification commissioners, as a group, commanding widespread acceptance throughout the community in Northern Ireland.’.
No. 198, in clause 2, page 1, line 19, leave out ‘commissioner’ and insert ‘commissioners’.
No. 222, in schedule 1, page 15, line 5, leave out ‘The’ and insert ‘A’.
No. 223, in schedule 1, page 15, line 19, leave out ‘Commissioner’ and insert ‘Commissioners’.
No. 224, in schedule 1, page 15, line 21, leave out ‘Commissioner’ and insert ‘Commissioners’.
No. 225, in schedule 1, page 15, line 26, leave out ‘Commissioner’ and insert ‘Commissioners’.
No. 226, in schedule 1, page 16, line 3, leave out ‘Commissioner’ and insert ‘Commissioners’.
No. 227, in schedule 1, page 16, line 4, leave out ‘Commissioner’s’ and insert ‘Commissioners’’.
No. 199, in clause 3, page 2, line 2, leave out ‘commissioner’ and insert ‘commissioners’.
No. 200, in clause 3, page 2, line 3, leave out ‘commissioner’ and insert ‘commissioners’.
No. 201, in clause 3, page 2, line 5, leave out ‘commissioner’ and insert ‘commissioners’.
No. 202, in clause 3, page 2, line 5, leave out ‘him’ and insert ‘them’.
No. 203, in clause 3, page 2, line 7, leave out ‘commissioner’ and insert ‘commissioners’.
No. 204, in clause 4, page 3, line 20, leave out ‘commissioner’ and insert ‘commissioners’.
No. 205, in clause 4, page 3, line 22, leave out ‘commissioner’ and insert ‘commissioners’.
No. 206, in clause 4, page 3, line 24, leave out ‘commissioner’ and insert ‘commissioners’.
No. 207, in clause 4, page 3, line 26, leave out ‘commissioner’ and insert ‘commissioners’.
No. 208, in clause 4, page 3, line 28, leave out ‘commissioner’ and insert ‘commissioners’.
No. 209, in clause 4, page 3, line 30, leave out ‘commissioner’ and insert ‘commissioners’.
No. 210, in clause 4, page 3, line 31, leave out ‘he’ and insert ‘they’.
No. 211, in clause 4, page 3, line 35, leave out ‘commissioner’ and insert ‘commissioners’.
No. 212, in clause 4, page 3, line 42, leave out ‘commissioner’ and insert ‘commissioners’.
No. 213, in clause 4, page 4, line 7, leave out ‘commissioner’ and insert ‘commissioners’.
No. 214, in clause 4, page 4, line 7, leave out ‘his’ and insert ‘their’.
No. 215, in clause 4, page 4, line 14, leave out ‘commissioner’ and insert ‘commissioners’.
No. 216, in clause 4, page 4, line 16, leave out ‘commissioner’ and insert ‘commissioners’.
No. 217, in clause 4, page 4, line 19, leave out ‘commissioner’ and insert ‘commissioners’.
No. 218, in clause 5, page 4, line 33, leave out ‘commissioner certifies’ and insert ‘commissioners certify’.
No. 219, in clause 15, page 8, line 20, leave out ‘commissioner’ and insert ‘commissioners’.
No. 220, in clause 15, page 8, line 28, leave out ‘commissioner’ and insert ‘commissioners’.
No. 221, in clause 20, page 10, line 41, leave out ‘commissioner’ and insert ‘commissioners’.

Mark Durkan: I am not sure that I like the idea of “dull and depressing” being my cue, Sir Nicholas. [Laughter.]
On Tuesday, many members of the Committee reflected on the obnoxious nature of the Bill and on how to test it to see whether we could mitigate some of its effects. It is in that spirit that I propose my amendments today, although I accept that as mitigation they would be merely dimples on a face of monstrosity. They recognise first and foremost that such is the feeling in Northern Ireland that the idea of having only one certification commissioner strains people’s confidence, particularly that of victims. When at other times in the process the two Governments have adopted new measures, supposedly to take the process forward and to deal with outstanding and remaining difficulties, they have recognised that the dimensions of the problem are not confined only to Northern Ireland and victims of the crimes committed during the troubles. People in the south have been affected, as, indeed, have people in Britain and beyond.
Our amendments would ensure that there were at least three certification commissioners. They provide for the possibility of creating an international dimension of credibility and support for the whole exercise. Before when the two Governments have tried to take things forward, they have often relied on creating bodies that could carry an international capacity and recruit personalities not only in Northern Ireland, but beyond the shores of these islands. That happened with the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning and the Independent Monitoring Commission, and it could well happen with the appeals commissioners dealt with under later clauses of the Bill. The Bill provides not only that there can be appeals commissioners—plural—but that, when appointing them the Secretary of State should ensure that they command the widest possible confidence throughout Northern Ireland.

Lady Hermon: Sir Nicholas, it is delightful to be in Committee under your chairmanship. No matter how dark it is outside, you brighten the Room—as does the hon. Member for Foyle. There is never a dull moment when he is present.
The hon. Gentleman began his introduction to the amendments by pointing out the obnoxious nature of the Bill. We cannot get away from that fact. Given that it is so obnoxious to the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland, how can he believe that the Secretary of State could find just one commissioner—let alone three—who commands enough widespread acceptance throughout the community in Northern Ireland to give get-out-of-jail-free cards to anyone?

Mark Durkan: I take the hon. Lady’s point. It might well be that the Government should support our amendment because they might not find a person who would take the job that they will be asking someone to do. The argument cuts both ways. People might be reluctant to take on the role, given that every victims’ group known to us has described the Bill as offensive. In proposing the amendment, we acknowledge that it will be hard to find people who might accept the job and it will certainly be hard to find any one person in Northern Ireland who could command widespread acceptance in the north. The fact is that, unlike the provision for the appeals commissioners, clause 2 does not require the Secretary of State to appoint someone who would command widespread acceptance in the north to the post of certification commissioner.
Our amendments would provide for a number of certification commissioners. That would allow for a suitable international dimension and for the appointment of people from throughout these islands as well. Our proposal is entirely consistent with the provision that the Government have made elsewhere in the Bill in respect of the appeals commissioners. We ask only that the Government are consistent with their own standards and principles and we offer amendments Nos. 178 and 179 in that spirit. The other amendments are all simply consequential, pluralizing all the references to the certification commissioner or the commissioner elsewhere in the Bill.

Lembit Öpik: Will the hon. Gentleman explain whether he envisages the commissioners working together as a unit or independently as three arbiters? That matter came up when my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt) raised the question of having three judges as a Diplock court. It would be helpful to have clarification on that.

Mark Durkan: Yes, we envisage the members acting corporately as a combined panel, as has been the case with other bodies. We do not envisage them acting independently. It will not be a case of “pick your certification commissioner”—we do not think that the amendments suggest that there would be a range of certification commissioners that people could choose from. They would be a corporate body.

Lembit Öpik: In that case, will the hon. Gentleman clarify how he envisages the commissioners making a decision? Although I hate to throw the same question at him as was thrown at my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull, does he envisage them acting on the basis of a majority vote or a unanimous judgment? It would be legitimate for the hon. Gentleman to say that he would leave such matters to the creation of standing orders at the time, but it would be useful to have an idea whether he has a view on the matter.

Mark Durkan: I take the hon. Gentleman’s point. We would need to discuss and explore that matter further. We did not get into it specifically in the amendment, because we can see arguments for and against. Those arguments could also arise in relation to the appeals commissioners. It might be that where a unanimous decision cannot be taken, a matter will have to be automatically referred to the appeals commissioners. There are a number of ways of dealing with the issue. We are trying to establish the principle that just as there are appeals commissioners—plural—sitting collectively, so should there be certification commissioners.

David Hanson: Good morning, Sir Nicholas. Welcome to the third sitting of the Committee.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Foyle for raising this question, because it gives us an opportunity in Committee to establish clearly the role of the certification commissioner and whether it can be satisfied by one person or whether, as the amendment proposes, several people should undertake that role.
I say immediately to my hon. Friend that it is not necessary to have more than one certification commissioner. I will try to explain the Government’s thinking. The commissioner’s task is sensitive and it may be difficult at times, for the reasons of which we are all aware. It goes without saying that the Bill is difficult and causes great difficulties, and I know hon. Members’ objections to the principle of the Bill. However, if it is accepted in principle that the certification commissioner should exist, I believe that the task can most effectively be undertaken by one individual.
If the Bill is passed, the commissioner will be working to an objective test of whether an individual is able to qualify for admission to the scheme. The role of the certification commissioner is to take a relatively straightforward decision on whether a person is eligible using the list of conditions that will, if later clauses are agreed to, be laid down by Parliament for that purpose. The appeals commissioners, to which my hon. Friend referred, have a quasi-judicial role and replicate the role of the sentence review commissioners, who make a different type of decision. The objectivity of the certification commissioner’s role will be clear; he or she will be making that test based on the eligibility criteria.

Lady Hermon: Will the Minister outline what qualifications the certification commissioner will have to display and what criteria will be used by the Government when making that appointment? Will he underline the fact that they are looking for merits? I hope to goodness that they will be.

David Hanson: Schedule 1, which we will discuss later, allows for discretion in making the appointment.

Lady Hermon: That is precisely why I am intervening now, because although the special tribunal and those who sit on it must have qualifications such as having enjoyed high judicial office in Northern Ireland or in England and Wales, there is nothing in schedule 1 about the qualifications, merits or anything else that the certification commissioner must have. Before we agree to the clause—although I will be voting against it—it would be pleasant if the Minister indicated what the Government are looking for in that appointment.

David Hanson: In broad quality terms, we are looking for a certification commissioner who is sensitive to and understands the political and judicial system in Northern Ireland, who can work equally with the judiciary, the special prosecutor and victims, and who understands the difficult circumstances that have brought the Bill about. He or she will need to be familiar with the criminal justice system and to have a background in handling sensitive information. Without specifying the particular skills and attributes that that individual will need, it is clear that the post will be a senior appointment with considerable gravitas. Reverting back to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle, there will be sufficient consultation with stakeholders in Northern Ireland to ensure that the appointment can be made in a sympathetic way and with the support of the wider community, as I hope we have done in other cases.

Mark Durkan: Will the Minister explain who he thinks are the stakeholders to be consulted? Does that mean the parties—getting the usual sound-around that does not add up to very much? Does it mean the victims? Does it mean those who might be applying for certificates? We have a Hain-Adams Bill, providing for  a Hain-Adams exercise in terms of a certification commissioner. Will it not really just be a Hain-Adams appointment?

David Hanson: The appointment will be made under normal independent appointments commission criteria, but as ever in Northern Ireland there is often the opportunity for the Secretary of State to discuss the potential for particular candidates with interested stakeholders in the political parties, and others. Ultimately, the appointment will be made under the appointments commission criteria. When making the appointment, the Secretary of State and the commission will need to ensure that there is understanding and community consensus regarding the individual appointed, because of the sensitivities involved and the controversial nature of the legislation.

Mark Durkan: I do not know how the Minister expects that to mean anything to any of us, and certainly to those of us from Northern Ireland, although it might mean something to Labour Members. The Government are insensitively bulldozing through a Bill that is objectionable and obnoxious to victims and to all the political parties in Northern Ireland—even Sinn Fein is now saying that it finds large parts of the Bill unacceptable. How will the consultation and sensitivity that the Minister seeks on this appointment compare with the consultation and sensitivity that we have had from the Government on the Bill?

David Hanson: I am sorry that my hon. Friend has taken that stance. It is clear to me, the Secretary of State and the Government that, should the Bill pass through both Houses of Parliament, the individual who is finally appointed as certification commissioner will have to be acceptable to the people of Northern Ireland. We will have to deal with the issue of acceptability in due course and we will have to be sensitive, given the nature of the Bill and the difficulties that it involves, and the opposition that there will still be to it. If the Bill reaches the statute book in its present or an amended form when the parliamentary processes have been completed, that sensitivity will be needed to ensure that the wider community has confidence that the certification commissioner will do his or her job in a sensitive and objective way, clearly guided by the conditions set out in the Bill. That will ensure that the commissioner applies the tests set out in later clauses definitively and in a way that is free from outside influence. Ultimately, the test for the commissioner is what the Bill finally says and the way in which the tests in later clauses are applied.

Tobias Ellwood: Following on from the question from the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon), the commissioner will be pivotal in ensuring that the Bill works, but there are huge concerns about the recruitment criteria. Has the Minister undertaken any soundings about the people he is likely to recruit to see  whether anybody would be interested in the job? I suspect that few will come forward. Is there an interest in taking the job up?

David Hanson: We cannot begin looking at the potential today, because the Bill has not yet finished its parliamentary passage. Even if we take the proposal through the House and the other place in the next few weeks and months, the earliest that the scheme will be able to operate will be early to mid-2007. Even if the Bill receives Royal Assent in this Session—between now and October or November next year—there will be time to appoint the certification commissioner and the special tribunal and a range of measures. Even if I said to somebody today, “We want you to be certification commissioner,” we would not be in a position to put that person into post until early to mid-2007. The answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question is therefore that we have not yet undertaken any soundings for individuals. I believe in the primacy of Parliament and we must get the Bill through both Houses. Furthermore, the Bill will not come into effect until early to mid-2007.

Peter Robinson: All the stages that the Minister has outlined are procedural. To what extent does he require the IRA’s behaviour to be a factor in the commencement of the Bill?

David Hanson: Even if passed by both Houses of Parliament, the Bill will not come in until 2007. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, another IMC report, which will examine progress on decommissioning, is due in the next 12 months and there will be other opportunities to monitor progress. If there were a failure in the political process, the Secretary of State could review the scheme in due course. However, I anticipate that the political process that commenced with the IRA statement in July this year and with the IMC report in October—and, potentially, its report in January or February next year—will continue to give momentum to the process. I hope that circumstances do not deteriorate, but, as with any political decision, if they do the Government can review any matter to do with this issue. The hon. Gentleman will know that that is the case, because in the past 12 months the Government have reviewed progress relating to the Northern bank robbery and other incidents that occurred in Northern Ireland last year. There are a range of issues, but I anticipate that if the legislation receives Royal Assent—I believe that it will—it will not be implemented until 2007, so questions to do with having an individual person in the certification commissioner’s post will not be considered until a later date.
I am straying slightly from the amendment. I simply say to my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle that, in my view, having three individuals in this role would not be a satisfactory way of ensuring the objectivity of the test. There should be one certification commissioner. I do not believe that it would be helpful to have a panel of three or more individuals judging the criteria, nor do I believe that having three individuals sharing the load would be satisfactory. We need to  have accountability; there should be one individual in the post who is accountable to the Secretary of State through the Bill.

Lembit Öpik: I do not want to prolong the debate, because I know that the Minister has nearly finished his speech. He is using arguments that the Government could have used to oppose Lord Carlile’s recommendation of three judges in Diplock courts. It is inconsistent to use such arguments in the current context and not to apply them in the case of those courts. Why is it that the Government’s only real argument against having three judges in courts is cost and complexity and we now have these different arguments to oppose the proposal of the hon. Member for Foyle?

David Hanson: We are straying quite far from the amendment, but I will respond to the hon. Gentleman’s point. The role of the certification commissioner is set down clearly in the legislation. The objectivity of the criteria for the certification commissioner’s assessment of individuals who might enter the scheme will be set down clearly in later clauses—subject to amendment and discussion in Committee. I believe that that will be an objective role. We do not yet know how many cases might come before the certification commissioner, but we can anticipate the approximate work load. One individual will be sufficient to manage that work load. To have one commissioner would lead to clarity of objectives and clear criteria. It would be far preferable to have one individual, rather than three.

Lady Hermon: In fairness to the legitimate points raised by the hon. Member for Foyle, the Minister said that before any appointment—if there is to be an appointment—is made to this ghastly office of certification commissioner, the Secretary of State will consult with stakeholders. Having mentioned that word, the Minister is obliged, I think, to identify who those stakeholders will be, and specifically to confirm to the Committee that the stakeholders will be the Northern Ireland victims’ commissioner, the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and the Chief Constable.

David Hanson: Those matters are subject to discussion and later amendments. I am trying to make it clear that the individual who is appointed has to be acceptable. The Secretary of State will make the appointment, and that individual has to be acceptable to the wider community in Northern Ireland. As ever, there will be informal discussions with a range of individuals. I do not want to specify today who they will be, but, as has happened in respect of other appointments, there will be discussions and understandings reached with individuals to make sure that the person is acceptable to the wider community. The certification commissioner needs to command the confidence of all the people involved in that difficult process. I am confident that when the time comes to make the appointment, the Secretary of State will be able to ensure that sufficient discussions are undertaken when  the commission has examined the matter to ensure that the individual who emerges from the process is acceptable to the community at large.

Mark Durkan: The Minister lays great emphasis on the absolute need for the person to be acceptable. However, will he take the point that none of us can think of anybody who might meet the criteria? We are talking about a mythical creature. The reality is that, as Governments have found before during such exercises, in order to get a sense of wider confidence and acceptance, to create some sense of balance and perspective and to take due account of the variety of criteria and considerations, we will have to go for more than one commissioner. We will have to go beyond Northern Ireland and maybe beyond these islands if we are to create enough credibility and confidence. That is the message coming from people who would be consulted on the appointment. Those doubts and suspicions about the appointment are held by many people.

David Hanson: I can only say that we will come later to an amendment tabled by the hon. Member for North Down that details potential consultees. My view is that a number of key stakeholders will automatically and naturally be consulted on the matter, because it is important that we have consensus and that whoever emerges from the appointments procedure has the confidence of the wider community.

Mark Durkan: What will be the test of acceptability? What will be the proof of consensus? The Minister talks about acceptability and consensus: how will we know acceptability and demonstrate consensus?

David Hanson: I am clear that we will need consensus on the appointment. In 2007, if the legislation goes through, when the appointment is finally made and the system is completed there needs to be consensus on an individual who has wide support in the community to undertake an extremely difficult and sensitive task on behalf of the relatives and others. I do not want to specify today all the different stakeholders who need to be consulted, because I do not want to exclude individuals, I do not want to examine the situation or to be clear on that point. However, the Government’s objective is to ensure that the individual appointed as certification commissioner has the wide support of the community in Northern Ireland.

Mark Hendrick: Is it not the case that some hon. Members here today are trying to fill the post—or, more accurately, not fill it—before the legislation is even passed? Is it not the case that having a single commissioner might encourage more consistency in judgments on certification than having three different commissioners who interpret the legislation in different ways?

David Hanson: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. I return to my first point. The certification commissioner will examine cases according to an objective test that we will set in later clauses. If an  individual applies for a certificate, the commissioner will be objective in applying that test. I want the certification commissioner to be accepted and respected by all sections of the community, to have dignity and to handle their extremely sensitive task in a positive way, without fear or favour, according to that objective.
I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle that I believe a single commissioner will be better placed to undertake that objective test rather than a panel of commissioners. The widespread community support and balance that might be possible if we had three commissioners from different sections of the community is not necessary, because the test is an objective test. I want the individual who is ultimately appointed to have the confidence of the community. When we discuss the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for North Down, I shall be able to discuss the fact that we want consensus on the appointment.
Several hon. Membersrose—

David Hanson: I am trying to conclude my remarks, but if Members want me to give way, I will certainly continue to take interventions.

Tobias Ellwood: The Minister has been kind in allowing people to intervene. However, it is the job of the Committee to scrutinise every aspect of the Bill, and that includes the work of the commissioner. We are talking about the creation of a new post, which must be seen to work. A number of members of the Committee are concerned that it will not work and that we will not be able to create and fill the post. I am worried that we will not meet the interests of all the stakeholders and that, as a consequence, we will not find someone in Northern Ireland who knows everything about what is going on there and can do the job correctly. We will then have to recruit somebody, probably from the mainland, and bring them in to do that job. That is the only way that the post will be filled, because no one else will come forward. That is why it is important for us to understand in detail what is expected of the commissioner.

David Hanson: I almost intervened on the hon. Gentleman because he was going on for so long. Could he give me any documentary evidence to back up his assertion that there is nobody in Northern Ireland who can fill the position?

Nicholas Winterton: The hon. Gentleman has been challenged by the Minister.

Tobias Ellwood: I have been, Sir Nicholas. It should be the other way round. The Minister should convince us that there are people willing to come forward. I realise that I am testing your patience with the length of my interventions, Sir Nicholas, but I have a valid point to make and the Minister has challenged me. I appreciate that he has not taken any soundings and that the post has not even been created, but if he had taken soundings among the type of people who might take up the role and had found that none of them would go  anywhere near that job, that would indicate that the role of the commissioner will be hard to fill, even in 2007.

David Hanson: I do not accept that. I take it from his contributions that the hon. Gentleman will support the amendment that proposes having three commissioners, but if his assertion is correct and I cannot find one, how on earth could I find three?

Mark Durkan: The Minister has talked about the difficulties of having three commissioners and says that there is no need to have three to get widespread acceptance. Why then does clause 13 provide that that is exactly what is needed for the appeals commissioners? Can he also explain how he can oppose amendment No. 179, which would simply build into the Bill the very assurance that he has given: he said that there is an absolute necessity to ensure acceptance of and consensus about the appointment, and amendment No. 179 would make that a requirement in the Bill. The Bill says that about the appeals commissioner, but it studiously and deliberately does not say that about the certification commissioner.

David Hanson: I do not believe that a statutory requirement is needed on that issue, but I do believe that ultimately it is quite sensible to ensure that that objective is achieved. That is a simple disagreement between us.

Peter Robinson: I rise to answer the question that the Minister left hanging. The reason why it might be better to have three certification commissioners is that if the qualities, skills and experience that the Minister seeks cannot be found in one person, they might be found in three collectively.

David Hanson: Those are conjectures. The Government’s view is that it is in the interests of the effective management of the scheme to have one certification commissioner who applies an objective test to the criteria that we will set in later clauses.
I understand the arguments. I accept the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle, but I hope that he accepts my reassurances that there will be consensus on the appointment when it is made and that there will be an objective test which the certification commissioner, whoever he or she is, will apply.

Nicholas Winterton: Does the hon. Member for Foyle wish to make some concluding remarks? I feel that this debate has exhausted itself.

Mark Durkan: Thank you, Sir Nicholas. I simply repeat the point that the amendments are consistent with the spirit of the Bill in respect of the appeals commissioners, so I cannot see why the Government can have a seriously strong objection. The amendments would put into the Bill the sort of assurances and guarantees that the Minister has tried to give the Committee this morning, so in rejecting the amendments, he is in effect rejecting his own argument, his own guarantees and assurances.
To respond to the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. Hendrick) about people here this morning trying to prevent any appointment, I am quite up front about trying to prevent the passage of the Bill. I am also quite up front about saying that if there are amendments that we can make to mitigate the effect of the Bill, we will make them. As I said earlier, if accepted, the amendments would simply be dimples on a monstrosity. The very fact that the Minister and my hon. Friends on the Government’s Benches cannot conceive of even that just adds to the sense of despair, frustration and disgust that many good people feel looking at the legislation.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided:  Ayes 10, Noes 14.

NOES

Question accordingly negatived.

Nicholas Winterton: We now come to amendment No. 229. I must apologise to the Committee. The names associated with this amendment are, I understand, incorrect, and the amendment is in the name of the hon. Member for North Down.

Lady Hermon: I beg to move amendment No. 229, in clause 2, page 1, line 18, leave out ‘Secretary of State’ and insert
‘First and Deputy First Minister Acting jointly’.

Nicholas Winterton: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 230, in clause 2, page 1, line 18, at end insert—
‘(1A)No appointment may be made under subsection (1) above without the approval of the First and Deputy First Minister acting jointly.’.
No. 41, in clause 24, page 13, line 18, at end add—
‘(2)The Secretary of State may not make an order under this section until he has made an order under section 2(2) of the Northern Ireland Act 2000 (c. 1) (ending suspension).’.

Lady Hermon: Thank you, Sir Nicholas. I am most grateful for that explanation of how the names appeared on the list. North Down is a progressive constituency, but we are not just that.
Amendments Nos. 229 and 230 are straightforward but, nevertheless, important. They share the same objective, which is to provide a role for the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister in the  appointment of the certification commissioner. Amendment No. 229 would give those two office holders, acting jointly—that is the key phrase—the role of appointing the certification commissioner. Although the Secretary of State is committed to making the appointment of the certification commissioner, amendment No. 230 would still require the approval of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, again acting jointly.
The reasoning behind the amendments is simple and straightforward. First, it would tie any appointment of a certification commissioner to devolution. Consequently, if there were no devolution, there would be no certification commissioner, and if there were no commissioner, there would be no amnesty. If, post devolution, the First and Deputy First Ministers could not agree to appoint anyone, no one should be appointed as a certification commissioner, and if no one was appointed, no one would get a get-out-of-jail-free card; one would not be issued.
In explaining the reasoning behind the amendments, I hope for support from hon. Members from constituencies throughout Northern Ireland and beyond. I hope that hon. Members recognise that, by supporting the amendment, they will not only delay the opportunity to put in place an amnesty for the worst criminals but, perhaps, delay that indefinitely. I encourage anyone with a conscience and a moral compass in their head to support the amendments.

Peter Robinson: Amendments Nos. 229 and 230, which should have appeared in the name of the hon. Member for North Down, have a similar purpose to amendment No. 41 in my name and those of my hon. Friends. Although the hon. Lady has attached her name to the amendment on the certification commissioner, we have attached ours to the amendment to clause 24, which relates to commencement of the provisions of the Act. It is not for me to question the grouping of amendments, but mine deals with a later clause. However, the purpose of the amendments is similar, which is no doubt why they were grouped together.
Amendment No. 41 gives us an opportunity to explore with the Minister the circumstances in which he intends to commence the provisions of the legislation. In an intervention, I sought to draw attention to the fact that the Minister had taken a very procedural position in relation to commencement of the legislation, whereas all the arguments presented on the Floor of the House of Commons indicated that it was in the context of what the IRA statement had said, what the IRA was doing and the general push towards peace. We want it to be clearly identified that the Minister will seek to commence the provisions of the legislation only in circumstances in which normality has resumed in Northern Ireland.
We have therefore attached the amendment to the recommencement of the Northern Ireland Assembly. It refers to the Northern Ireland Act 2000, the suspension Act. When that is lifted, powers are devolved back to the Assembly. I recognise that the  Government have complete control over that, but the amendment takes into account the fact that there would be no point in their removing the suspension if they did not believe that there was sufficient confidence in the community for the Assembly to recommence its operation. We have linked the amendment to a time when not only the Government but the whole community will have judged IRA activity to have reached such a stage that it has given up all its weaponry and ended its criminal and paramilitary activity. This odious Bill brings into being a set of circumstances that no right-thinking democrat wants to see but, under the amendment, it would at the very least be brought into effect only in circumstances in which there was seen to be some benefit for the community, in that normality would have resumed.
On previous occasions—this is no doubt the reason why the hon. Member for North Down tabled her amendments; it is certainly the reason why we tabled ours—the Government have been prepared to take paramilitaries at their word. The Government have been prepared to dish out the goodies to the paramilitaries in the hope that they might be persuaded, no doubt cowed by the generosity of the Government, into giving up their violence. The amendments would mean that paramilitaries would know straightforwardly and up front that unless all their violence and criminality is put behind them, they would not benefit from the legislation. Instead of the Government giving gestures to paramilitaries without receiving any assurance that they will deliver, and the community seeing that, once again, the Government are making concessions that they will never draw back from once they have offered them, the amendments will bring certainty to the situation.
I trust therefore that the Government will be prepared to concede on that very small issue. I think that my colleagues will be content, if the hon. Lady presses her amendment to a Division, to support it, because it will make the same point as ours, and we will therefore not push our amendment to a Division. However, I trust that neither the hon. Lady nor the rest of us will have to press the amendments to a Division because I hope that the Minister will be prepared to concede on the matter.

Mark Durkan: The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) makes the point that all three amendments are about trying to ensure that the Bill does not come into effect and that appointments cannot take place until we have a context of devolution. I have some sympathy and understanding with what he and the hon. Member for North Down are trying to achieve in that regard. However, I have a number of concerns.
First, as someone who was part of the very difficult arrangement of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister acting jointly, I emphasise that we should recognise that although acting jointly brings its own difficulties and strains, it does not mean that the two people acting jointly have any discretion about some of the decisions that they have to take. There would  still be a statutory requirement on them to take a decision to make an appointment, whether they wanted to or could find the one person who could meet those criteria.
Given that the previous amendments concerning three commissioners have been rejected, I believe that we would be asking the First Minister and Deputy First Minister acting jointly to do the impossible. I therefore do not fully agree with the amendments. However, I am tempted to vote for them, on the basis that I know that my hon. Friends do not agree with what they are voting for, if we are to believe all that we hear, but that they see no problem in voting for things that they do not really agree with or that their heart is not in. In terms of being ready to test the Bill, I might be prepared to vote for things that I do not fully believe in or agree with.

Lady Hermon: May I ask the hon. Gentleman to explain how his party’s policy has changed on that matter? The hon. Gentleman’s colleague, Seamus Mallon, the former hon. Member for Armagh and Newry, who is, unfortunately, no longer in the House—he was a great parliamentarian—was very vocal during the passage of the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002, about writing in at every opportunity that any justice programme or appointments in the judicial field should be a matter for the First Minister and Deputy First Minister acting jointly. Amendments were moved by the hon. Gentleman’s party colleagues ad infinitum on that piece of legislation. Has his party’s policy changed?

Mark Durkan: No, and the hon. Lady will recall that other amendments were tabled in respect of the policing Bill, for instance, in relation to the First Minister and Deputy First Minister acting jointly, which the SDLP—Seamus Mallon—did not support. We have been judicious as to when it is right and proper for the First Minister and Deputy First Minister to discharge the interest of the Northern Ireland Administration and the Northern Ireland Executive in respect of justice matters and devolution, because the First Minister and Deputy First Minister have a rightful representative and corporate role on behalf of the Northern Ireland institutions in that context. However, in relation to other proposals, about matters with a more political import on which people wanted the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, acting jointly, to provide a veto, we had a history of opposing it in previous legislation.

Sammy Wilson: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the point of the amendment is not that the First Minister and Deputy First Minister would have the right of veto, but that they would be making the decision in a context in which there had been sufficient confidence to get devolution up and running? That would have required a long period of change and evidence, taken from IRA behaviour, of a change of heart. A link would be made with proper behaviour by the terrorists.

Mark Durkan: I accept the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. Even though I have problems with the amendments, I recognise the spirit in which they are proposed. I do not believe that people will, whatever the circumstances, be as reconciled to the Bill as he suggests. He might be careful; the argument that he makes today might be used by those who support the Bill to suggest that it will be all right on the night—that when we get to where we are going, all other things being equal, people will be able to hold their noses and accept the measure. I do not believe that the Bill will become much more acceptable, no matter how certain other things become.
One reason for my reluctance about the amendments—and I am particularly glad that, to go by what the hon. Member for Belfast, East has said, the DUP will not put its amendment to a Division—is connected to the fact that many of us use expressions such as “This must be opposed or prevented at all costs.” I should go so far as to say that I believe that about the Bill. However, I do not want to create a situation in which “all costs” includes preventing devolution. I do not want to create an incentive to avoid completion, with respect to the prospect of restoration, as a way of preventing the Bill from taking effect.
We have already seen the trouble that has arisen from the pub crawl of preconditions about creating talks, creating institutions and getting back to restoration. I recognise that the hon. Member for Belfast, East will probably not press amendment No. 41; I am not sure that it would achieve what he thinks it would. As we have seen, the Secretary of State can suspend on a come-and-go basis. We have had two commercial break suspensions, when we were stripped of our powers at midnight on Saturday, to have them restored at midnight on Sunday. If we can have commercial break suspension, I am sure that we could have commercial break restoration to create a trigger point for the appointment. It would, of course, mean restoration of the Assembly, not the institutions such as the Executive.
The amendments tabled by the hon. Member for North Down would go much further to guarantee that agreed working institutions would be in place before the appointment could be made. They are stronger than amendment No. 41. I am willing to hear what the Minister has to say. I will listen and take into account the balance, but the amendments will not make the appointment or the process more acceptable, and I am concerned that they might tilt some people’s attitude to the prospects for devolution.

Lorely Burt: I want to echo the views of the hon. Member for Foyle and perhaps develop them a little. I reiterate Liberal Democrats’ opposition to the Bill as a whole, but we want, in a spirit of co-operation, to examine how it would work. We have a problem with the amendments, as their effect would be that the Bill would not be enforced until suspension had been lifted and the Assembly was back up and running. That would be an incentive for Sinn Fein to do all that it could to create the circumstances in which other democratic parties were prepared to go into  government with it. It works both ways, because all the parties in Northern Ireland would have to work in a spirit of co-operation, but I am worried that that may act as a disincentive against getting things back up and running and against suspension being lifted so that the Bill does not come into effect.

Laurence Robertson: I follow the hon. Lady’s logic, but she will be aware from the meeting that she attended that was similar to the one that I attended only yesterday that Sinn Fein now has serious reservations about the Bill.

Lorely Burt: I take the hon. Gentleman’s point, but is he saying that he does not believe that Sinn Fein would be prepared to come to the table anyway if suspension were lifted?

Laurence Robertson: My point is that it is getting to the stage where all the parties will be opposed to the Bill. The hon. Lady may have a different interpretation, but if she is suggesting that the DUP, for example, would delay going back into government to prevent the Bill from being enacted, I suspect that Sinn Fein may also reach that point, based on what I heard yesterday, because of its objection to members of the security forces being included in the Bill. I am not suggesting that this would be the case, but if the DUP were to delay devolution in order to prevent the Bill from becoming an Act, I am becoming convinced that Sinn Fein may well attempt to do the same.

Lorely Burt: I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit öpik) wants to intervene.

Lembit Öpik: Is my hon. Friend saying that the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) is right to suggest that all parties in Northern Ireland may have an incentive to oppose the introduction of the legislation? If she is, and if I understand the hon. Member for Tewkesbury correctly, that strengthens her case, because it means that the only way in which we may be able to prevent the implementation of this dreadful legislation is by preventing the re-institution of the Assembly. If that is the case, that is an even stronger incentive not to tie the re-establishment of the Assembly directly to the implementation of this dreadful Bill.

Lorely Burt: I totally agree with my hon. Friend’s sentiments.

Jeremy Hunt: I strongly commend the amendment to the Committee for the following reason. I accept the Government’s good intentions in trying to find a way forward in the incredibly difficult situation in Northern Ireland, but they have achieved the unique feat of uniting all parties in Northern Ireland that are wholeheartedly committed to democratic unity in opposition to the measure. Indeed, it may have united them particularly uniquely with Sinn Fein, which may also be against the measure.
The Minister may feel unable to share this with the Committee, but if the Bill is the result of assurances that have been given to Sinn Fein about how on-the-runs will be dealt with, the amendment is a very elegant way of taking a lot of poison out of the Bill, because it allows him to maintain any assurances that might have been made while delaying their implementation until there is enough trust between the different communities in Northern Ireland to allow it to be implemented.
I would say only that if such an amendment were accepted, the Committee would have to consider further amendments that would not make it binding on the resumption of devolution that the Bill would have to be enacted. In other words, the Bill would not have to be enacted with the support of the Northern Ireland Assembly at Stormont. The Minister should accept that this genuine attempt to find a way through an incredibly difficult Bill—one that is distasteful to all parts of the Committee—would allow such measures, if they are ever appropriate, to be put forward at a more appropriate time, when there is more trust in the community in Northern Ireland.

Tobias Ellwood: We have moved on to discussing devolved government in Northern Ireland in this context. There is a crude yardstick: if devolved government returns, that will be an indication that things are going in the right direction. The Bill is designed to come into effect in 2007. If devolved government comes back then, we will have had a period of peace. Everybody in this room would be in favour of that.
We spoke earlier about the qualifications that would be required from the commissioner, and concerns were expressed from most parts of the Committee about the suitability of the candidate who might be put forward. With the utmost respect to the Minister, my concern is that the fact that we are addressing a Bill of this kind at all suggests that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland may not necessarily have his finger on the pulse as to what is required in Northern Ireland, as perhaps he should have. We should consider what including the First and Deputy First Ministers as part of the process of selecting a commissioner would allow.

David Anderson: The way I read the amendment, the First and Deputy First Ministers would not be part of the process; they would be the whole process, because it would take the Secretary of State out of it.

Tobias Ellwood: I think the hon. Gentleman is mistaken. The amendment that I am supporting is inclusive; it is the one that includes the Secretary of State, the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister.

Mark Hendrick: Amendment No. 230.

Tobias Ellwood: Thank you. The purpose of that is to include the interests of not only the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, but of people in Northern Ireland, and only after there is devolved government.  The Minister spoke of its being in the interests of all stakeholders to participate in the process, and of being in agreement with the commissioner. Two people with the biggest interest in ensuring that this works will be the First and Deputy First Ministers. Therefore, I very much support the amendment.

David Hanson: There are three amendments before the Committee. The first, amendment No. 229, as my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr. Anderson) mentioned, would allow just the First and Deputy First Ministers to make the appointment for certification commissioner, not the Secretary of State. The second, amendment. No. 230, would make the appointment conditional on the approval of the First and Deputy First Ministers. The provision in the third, amendment No. 41, which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Belfast, East, would not come into effect unless the Assembly were restored.
I have listened with care to what has been said in favour of each amendment, and there is obviously a wish on everybody’s part to ensure that the Assembly is up and running as soon as possible. That wish is shared by the Government. As a Minister, I am responsible for two devolved Departments. I have no vote, no mandate and no constituency in Northern Ireland, yet I determine policy on a range of issues, such as housing, the Olympics, sports, the arts and social security. I did not stand for election in Northern Ireland, and not one single cross was put by the name of a candidate from my party in Northern Ireland. That it is not a tenable position in the long term. I would like the Assembly to be restored tomorrow, and I will quite happily walk out of this room and discuss its re-establishment with any Member from any political party.

Sammy Wilson: Does the Minister accept that the arguments that he has just made represent a good reason for not introducing controversial legislation such as this in the first place?

David Hanson: That goes back to my main argument against the amendments—namely, that these are excepted matters that are reserved to the House of Commons and the British Government. These matters are the Government’s responsibility because they deal with terrorism and crime; they are not—in any way, shape or form—devolved to the Assembly. The Assembly is responsible for devolved functions, and I want it to take responsibility for those functions tomorrow.

Gordon Banks: I would be grateful for some clarification from the Minister. If this legislation were being enacted in other parts of the UK that have devolved government, such as Scotland, would these matters be reserved to Westminster and not fall under Holyrood’s jurisdiction?

David Hanson: In Scotland, these matters are a responsibility of the Scottish Executive because criminal justice is devolved.

Sammy Wilson: And the Minister is bringing in this Bill?

David Hanson: The hon. Gentleman should wait a moment. The Scottish Executive have responsibility for certain matters, but the matters before us—terrorism and national security—are reserved to the British Government.

Tobias Ellwood: I am grateful to the Minister for allowing me to intervene. We must separate security matters, which, of course, should not be devolved to Northern Ireland at present, and the selection of a commissioner. I hope we can distinguish between the two. We are not arguing that anyone from the Assembly should participate in respect of the commissioner’s role; we are simply discussing the selection of that commissioner. That is as far as it would go.
Does the Minister not agree that it would be inclusive and to the benefit of those in Northern Ireland—and to those stakeholders to which the Minister referred—to include those who have knowledge of what is happening on the ground?

David Hanson: Perhaps I could put that question back to the hon. Gentleman. Does he think that, in the event of devolution being restored, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland should have a say in who becomes chief of the civil service in the Assembly? It is the same principle; these are excepted matters. In a devolved circumstance, should the Secretary of State have a say on who is appointed head of the civil service in Northern Ireland?
Several hon. Membersrose—

David Hanson: Several hon. Members wish to intervene. Perhaps I could hear first from the hon. Member for Tewkesbury.

Laurence Robertson: Clause 18 on the special prosecutor states:
“The Secretary of State, after consultation with the Advocate General for Northern Ireland, must appoint a person, to be known as the Special Prosecutor”.
That seems to tie in with the proposal made by the hon. Member for Foyle that the First and Deputy First Ministers should approve the appointment. It seems identical.

David Hanson: For the avoidance of doubt, the Government believe that the scheme in the Bill is an excepted matter under schedule 2 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. It will be covered by the category
“special powers and other provisions for dealing with terrorism”
in paragraph 17 of that schedule. The First and Deputy First Ministers do not have any authority or responsibility for taking any part in the appointment of the certification commissioner, potentially, because that matter is excepted and reserved under that legislation.

Ben Wallace: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. As one who has served in a devolved Parliament, I know that a can of worms can start small and get bigger and bigger. I fully  understand his position on terrorism offences, which the Bill predominantly covers. In a previous sitting, we discussed offences committed, perhaps, by members of the armed forces. Those would be ordinary criminal offences committed, perhaps, during duty, but not in any way terrorist offences.
Therefore, the commissioner may be dealing with crimes that may become the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Assembly, if my friends in the DUP are correct when they talk about the Minister introducing a crime Bill in the next 12 months to cover devolved powers. How does the Minister cover that angle? The commissioner or the special tribunal might deal with crimes rather than terrorist crimes, so they would fall within the remit of Stormont.

David Hanson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point because it helps to clarify this matter. We must consider the purpose of clause 1. The definition of the crimes is for
“terrorism and the affairs of Northern Ireland”—

Peter Robinson: Whether for terrorist purposes or not.

David Hanson: But that will include—we are revisiting the debate on clause 1—a definition by the certification commissioner of what is related to terrorism and the affairs of Northern Ireland.
The hon. Member for Tewkesbury asked about the Advocate-General. On reflection, I can establish the fact that that is a Westminster office, which is currently not devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Ben Wallace: I do not expect the Minister to tell us off the top of his head how the fine detail as between a criminal offence—only he is aware of the reforms that he might introduce to Stormont in future—and the terrorist issues will be coped with, but I urge him to consider that difference carefully. I know that the Scotland Act 1998 looked good in Committee, but when the Scottish Parliament became a reality, these things, in relation to Westminster, did not always work. We have already seen such issues arise with the First Minister in respect of immigration. Therefore, I urge this Minister and his officials to reconsider the matter carefully and to try to find a way out, because there is a difference between a terrorist crime and a crime committed elsewhere or by a member of the armed forces.

David Hanson: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s comments, and I will reflect on those issues in due course, but today we are considering the amendments before us. The involvement of the First and Deputy First Ministers might mean that what is now an excepted and reserved matter would be their responsibility in part, and would give them a veto in part, in respect of ensuring that the certification commissioner is not appointed.
For the reasons that my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle mentioned, there would be potential for political gridlock if the Secretary of State could not make an  appointment due to there being no agreement between the First and Deputy First Ministers. History shows us that, because the First and Deputy First Ministers will be from different political parties, there will, on occasion, be a veto for one party. I seek consensus on the appointment, but I do not want to give a statutory veto to one or both of those elected officials.

Sammy Wilson: Earlier, the Minister made great play of the importance of there being consensus as well as widespread and general community acceptance of the commissioner. Is he now saying that there may be circumstances in which that will not happen and that he therefore wants to the power to remain in the hands of the Secretary of State, rather than the decision being made on a cross-community basis between the First and Deputy First Ministers?

David Hanson: I want this matter to remain with the Secretary of State because it is primarily a reserved and excepted matter under Northern Ireland terrorism legislation. The Secretary of State will want to achieve consensus on the appointment, as any sensible Secretary of State should, but the amendment would give a veto on that appointment to the First and Deputy First Ministers, although the Deputy First Minister might not represent the majority party in any Northern Ireland Assembly. Therefore, for the reasons that my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle gave—I am pleased to agree with him, perhaps for the first time in Committee today—about the potential for political gridlock, agreeing to the amendment would mean taking a retrograde step.

Lembit Öpik: As the Committee knows from the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull, we were going to support the Government on this amendment, but the more the Minister says, the less inclined I am to do that, because his comments contradict the Government’s actions. He assures us that the Government will seek consensus, yet when every party in Northern Ireland opposed student tuition top-up fees, the Government nevertheless imposed their will on the Province. Why, then, should we believe that the Government will be any more sympathetic to the will and consensus in Northern Ireland over this appointment?

David Hanson: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is able to recognise that a Government can work hard and do everything they can to secure consensus, but if it cannot be reached they have a duty to take action. I am seeking consensus on the appointment. The aim of Government and the Secretary of State will be to have widespread community support for and consensus on the appointment. If accept the hon. Lady’s proposal and specify in the Bill that the Secretary of State cedes the principle that a reserved matter is determined by the First Minister or Deputy First Minister and thus cedes the potential for a veto by one particular individual, we might get 90 per cent. consensus but a veto might be used.

Mark Durkan: I thank the Minister for acknowledging for the first time that he might agree with some of what I was arguing, although in reaching to agree with part of my argument, he disagreed with a number of the arguments that he has made before and will no doubt make again.
The Minister stated categorically that we are dealing with a terrorism matter and that that is an issue for the Secretary of State. Some of his comments pre-empt the debate on the scope of devolution in terms of justice and policing. We will table amendments to other clauses in respect of the Secretary of State’s powers to test what difference devolution might make, but will the Minister clarify the position under current legislation? Is it not the case that any power of the First and Deputy First Ministers is exercisable by the Secretary of State if the suspension continues? Even any new power vested in the First and Deputy First Ministers will, during suspension, be exercisable by the Secretary of State.

David Hanson: My hon. Friend’s point is correct. He knows that at the moment, much to my regret, my ministerial colleagues and I are exercising the powers of the First and Deputy First Ministers and all the Ministers in the Assembly. During the suspension, we represent the Assembly in Northern Ireland. I want to resolve that situation soon. I would happily walk out of this Room with my hon. Friends today and restore the Assembly if that were possible.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Does my hon. Friend share my confusion about the statements from the Opposition Benches? The hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) sees the amendment as a way to build some sort of consensus by using the mechanisms of the Assembly. The hon. Member for North Down expressed genuinely principled objections—she sees it as a way of blocking not the appointment per se but the process per se. Their views of the function of the amendment are quite contradictory.

David Hanson: I agree with my hon. Friend. My general wish in relation to the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Belfast, East is that by the time the legislation comes into effect in 2007 the Assembly would be back up and running.

Lady Hermon: I am enormously grateful to the Minister for allowing me to intervene on that point. He has indicated that the Bill—if it goes through as it stands—will come into force in early to mid-2007. Is he telling us that he has no confidence that there will be a restored Assembly before 2007? Does he think that there will be no First Minister and Deputy First Minister by then? Alternatively, if there is a restoration of devolution and he and his ministerial team walk out the door—we would be glad if they did and we had a devolved Assembly again —should we ignore the First and Deputy First Ministers and ignore the vote and the will of the people of Northern Ireland, despite everything else that has happened and all the opposition to the Bill?

David Hanson: No, I am not suggesting that we ignore the wishes of the First and Deputy First Ministers. I suggest that we ignore something else: acknowledging their role in a reserved and excepted matter. I hope that the Assembly will be restored. The British Government will do all they can to facilitate discussions with all the parties to restore the Assembly. We want it to be restored as soon as possible. We have already had exploratory, stock-taking talks with all the political parties, with the exception of the Democratic Unionist party, who have refused to take part.
I hope that following the Independent Monitoring Commission report in January next year we will be able to consider how to make progress following the IRA statement in July this year. However, I cannot put a timetable on that. I want devolution to be restored today, but I cannot set out a timetable because the restoration of devolution is not in my hands. It is in the hands of the political parties in Northern Ireland; it is up to them to get around a table to seek an agreement and to establish a devolved Assembly again. I would do that today, but I am not in a position to do that.

Sammy Wilson: Does the Minister accept that that is the point of the amendments? The Minister is introducing the Bill at a time when there is no devolution, which means that there is no confidence in Northern Ireland that the IRA has changed. The Minister proposes to allow IRA members and others to walk free at a time when it is clear that people are not convinced that there has been any change in their behaviour because devolution is not up and running. Rather than a confidence-building measure, the amendment is a blocking measure to ensure that this kind of legislation can be introduced only when there is confidence in the community that there has been a change.

Nicholas Winterton: Order. I am listening to the debate extremely carefully. I would hope that we could wind up our discussion on this amendment by the time that we have to adjourn, but we are going round in ever-decreasing circles. I think that the Minister has got the point, and I think that the Committee understands the position. I merely seek to counsel the Committee about the time that is being taken on this top, if we are to consider the entire Bill within the time limit that has been laid down by the House.

David Hanson: I am grateful to you for those remarks, Sir Nicholas. I am trying to accommodate hon. Members’ desire to press the Government on these points. I simply say that I do not believe that this matter should be devolved to the Assembly.

Mark Durkan: Can I clarify one point?

David Hanson: I am trying to finish my remarks so that we can conclude our discussion on this amendment before we adjourn. I am happy to give way, because, as I have said, it is entirely in the Opposition’s hands to progress the Bill at the pace they wish. However, I also recognise what Sir Nicholas has said: we are still dealing with minor amendments to clause 2 and we have far to go.

Ben Wallace: I shall be brief, Sir Nicholas. I hope that what I have to say might produce compromise and save time by avoiding a Division. Amendment No. 230 mentions “approval”. Will the Minister consider returning with a Government amendment that replaces the word “approval” with “consult” so the legislation at least forces the Secretary of State to consult with the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister?

David Hanson: I made the point earlier that we must ensure that there is wide consultation; such an amendment would preclude that. The First and Deputy First Ministers will—probably—come from only two political parties out of all of Northern Ireland’s political teams.

Laurence Robertson: They will.

David Hanson: Exactly; they will. If I make it a statutory requirement to consult them, that will not be a requirement to consult with a range of other individuals. That is the point I am trying to make.

Mark Durkan: The Minister’s said earlier that there would be consultation with all the stakeholders, but he would not specify who the stakeholders would be, but it seems that it is now being specifically stated that the stakeholders will not include our First and Deputy First Ministers, although people may be consulted on the basis of the parties they represent. The whole point of the joint office of First and Deputy First Minister being put into the Good Friday agreement was so that people would have a statutory duty to operate not  purely on a partisan basis. That is a valuable principle in the agreement—although it was dislodged in the comprehensive agreement last December.
Can the Minister make it clear that the amendment would not have the effect that its supporters believe it would? Even if the powers were to fall to the First and Deputy First Ministers, the Secretary of State could exercise them anyway. Restoration would not be required before appointments could be made. Even if the legislation were amended in this way, the Secretary of State could go ahead and make the appointments using the powers of the First and Deputy First Ministers.

David Hanson: I say to my hon. Friend that I believe that the amendments would ensure that the First and Deputy First Minister are responsible for a reserved matter. I want them to be consulted, but I do not want to preclude consultation with a range of other people.
We have had a full discussion, and I ask for the amendment to be withdrawn. If that is not done, I urge my party colleagues to reject it.

Lady Hermon: I shall make my remarks quickly and with brevity, because I appreciate that we have a lot to get through—and I appreciate your efforts, Sir Nicholas. I am sorry, but I shall not withdraw the amendment—

It being twenty-five minutes past Ten o’clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned till this day at One o’clock.